Is there a 'default' stance on theism? (part two, or three)

[EduChris]

Since the original thread was inexplicably locked, let's continue the discussion here.

ThatGirlAgain wrote:

...to be able to create some worlds but not to do so would imply unfulfilled potential, making God less than perfect...If there is a God who created this world, then that God necessarily created all possible worlds. The idea of volition would seem to be inapplicable here. God had no choice...

This strikes me as an odd claim. If it were true, then we should also say that a king who fails to impregnate all of the women in his kingdom has necessarily defaulted some potential. But if the king valued the notion of having a significant relationship with one and only one woman, and if the unique status of this monogamous relationship would be damaged by the king's constant dalliances with other women, then why should the king be thought of as exhibiting unfulfilled potential by simply virtue of his valuing the monogamous relationship over the multiple dalliances?

[ThatGirlAgain]

Since the original thread was inexplicably locked, let's continue the discussion here.

ThatGirlAgain wrote:

...to be able to create some worlds but not to do so would imply unfulfilled potential, making God less than perfect...If there is a God who created this world, then that God necessarily created all possible worlds. The idea of volition would seem to be inapplicable here. God had no choice...

This strikes me as an odd claim. If it were true, then we should also say that a king who fails to impregnate all of the women in his kingdom has necessarily defaulted some potential. But if the king valued the notion of having a significant relationship with one and only one woman, and if the unique status of this monogamous relationship would be damaged by the king's constant dalliances with other women, then why should the king be thought of as exhibiting unfulfilled potential by simply virtue of his valuing the monogamous relationship over the multiple dalliances?

God is supposedly the ultimate in perfection. A king who claimed to be the most perfect impregnator who did not impregnate all women could not legitimately hold that title.

But that is not the main point. A king who chose one woman over others would have some reason for doing so. What reason would God have for choosing to create some worlds and not others? For God to be the origin of all existence there could not be any pre-existing factors to influence the choices. As I said in the other thread, human volition involves judgment of the relevant factors. For God there are no relevant factors. For God to choose some things and omit others is a totally random act with no intelligible explanation, there being no basis for a choice. This is not volition in any familiar sense.

One might say that there are standards that are somehow natural in and of themselves. In the example of the king, we might say that monogamous relationships are inherently good and the king would have no other woman. The implication would be that this world is inherently good and the best choice God could possibly make. Look around. This does not sound like a convincing argument. But if this is simply one world out of an infinite number of possibilities, the problem of evil and the puzzle of the negligible relevance between humans and the universe at large simply go away.

[EduChris]

...God is supposedly the ultimate in perfection...

Well, there are various standards of perfection; I don't know how we should feel obliged to force one standard of perfection on God. We could probably say that whatever God chooses to do will be done as God chooses to do it, but beyond that everything becomes a subjective matter, rather than objective.

...A king who claimed to be the most perfect impregnator who did not impregnate all women could not legitimately hold that title...

Actually that's not true. If the king claimed to be the most prolific impregnator, he could only hold such title so long as no one else performed a greater number of impregnations. On the other hand, if he claimed to be the most "perfect" impregnator, a variety of subjective judgements would be required to determine the "truth" of the matter.

...A king who chose one woman over others would have some reason for doing so. What reason would God have for choosing to create some worlds and not others?...

Freedom and the pursuit of high value (according to some internal criteria known to God, but perhaps not to us).

...human volition involves judgment of the relevant factors. For God there are no relevant factors...

Non-sequitur. Humans may be influenced by a variety of external factors, but there is no logically compelling reason to suppose that all volition must necessarily boil down to a calculus of external factors.

...For God to choose some things and omit others is a totally random act with no intelligible explanation, there being no basis for a choice. This is not volition in any familiar sense...

You seem to be trying to reduce volition down to a combination of chance & necessity. But I don't see an argument here; rather, I see only dubious assertions. For all we know, the basis for choice might be God's pleasure, God's desire to share in meaningful and mutual relationships with significantly free creatures groomed for such purpose.

...The implication would be that this world is inherently good and the best choice God could possibly make. Look around. This does not sound like a convincing argument...the problem of evil and the puzzle of the negligible relevance between humans and the universe at large...

There are resolutions to all of these objections. For example, God might have decided to step back and give creatures a universe of their own, to learn and develop and to engage in meaningful activity and moral deliberation. Given that sort of scenario, the problem of evil goes away and we become what in fact we seem to be: the most amazing and magnificent creatures in the entire known universe, on our way to even bigger and better things.

[ThatGirlAgain]

...God is supposedly the ultimate in perfection...

Well, there are various standards of perfection; I don't know how we should feel obliged to force one standard of perfection on God. We could probably say that whatever God chooses to do will be done as God chooses to do it, but beyond that everything becomes a subjective matter, rather than objective.

...A king who claimed to be the most perfect impregnator who did not impregnate all women could not legitimately hold that title...

Actually that's not true. If the king claimed to be the most prolific impregnator, he could only hold such title so long as no one else performed a greater number of impregnations. On the other hand, if he claimed to be the most "perfect" impregnator, a variety of subjective judgements would be required to determine the "truth" of the matter.

...A king who chose one woman over others would have some reason for doing so. What reason would God have for choosing to create some worlds and not others?...

Freedom and the pursuit of high value (according to some internal criteria known to God, but perhaps not to us).

All of these assume volition on the part of God but leave the details mysterious. (And after 12 years of Catholic school, I know from Mysteries. ) The bases on which the various judgments are made are unknown. For there to even be bases (plural of basis BTW) requires something existing prior to God, who is supposed to be the ground of existence. There must be things built into the very idea of existence that inform Gods judgment. If there are not, Gods choices are simply arbitrary and random. This is not what humans call volition. This specific universe might just as well have come into existence by chance as by Gods volition.

...human volition involves judgment of the relevant factors. For God there are no relevant factors...

Non-sequitur. Humans may be influenced by a variety of external factors, but there is no logically compelling reason to suppose that all volition must necessarily boil down to a calculus of external factors.

Humans make judgments based on looking at the existing situation and deciding among alternatives. With God there could be no existing situation to look at, nothing having been created yet.

...For God to choose some things and omit others is a totally random act with no intelligible explanation, there being no basis for a choice. This is not volition in any familiar sense...

You seem to be trying to reduce volition down to a combination of chance & necessity. But I don't see an argument here; rather, I see only dubious assertions. For all we know, the basis for choice might be God's pleasure, God's desire to share in meaningful and mutual relationships with significantly free creatures groomed for such purpose.

The assertion is not at all arbitrary. There are many ways in which universes could have been made to facilitate meaningful and mutual relationships with significantly free creatures. Why exactly this one? And especially since this one makes such relationships really difficult. To throw in a relevant quote from a different topic, Tell Jesus to stop kissing me!

Volition as we know it is a conscious decision based on available information. To God there is no available information before creating the world. A specific decision is not based on anything. It might as well be chance and/or necessity.

...The implication would be that this world is inherently good and the best choice God could possibly make. Look around. This does not sound like a convincing argument...the problem of evil and the puzzle of the negligible relevance between humans and the universe at large...

There are resolutions to all of these objections. For example, God might have decided to step back and give creatures a universe of their own, to learn and develop and to engage in meaningful activity and moral deliberation. Given that sort of scenario, the problem of evil goes away and we become what in fact we seem to be: the most amazing and magnificent creatures in the entire known universe, on our way to even bigger and better things.

This is hardly our universe. Its design clearly has essentially nothing to do with us. God may have made it for a purpose but we are not it. To claim otherwise is a highly dubious assertion. As is to think that we are amazing and magnificent compared to what could have been. And if the purpose of it all is for us to engage in meaningful activity and moral deliberation for Godsamusement?... how does the high infant mortality rate throughout the world and history fit into that? Likewise death rates in general. We just get to the point where we know something important about life and we die. (A paraphrase of one of the last things my grandfather said.)

To think that God did all this deliberately and for no special reason when an infinite number of other possibilities were available is really scary.

I still see no reason to require a conscious God as the ground of existence. As I discussed at length in the other thread, logic as the basis of existence explains things much better. And by logic we only need three rules:

A is A, a thing is what it is.

A is not not-A, contradictions do not exist.

If A can be, it is.

Voila! An infinite number of universes embodying all possibilities. No need to explain where God or anything else came from.

[Artie]

I still see no reason to require a conscious God as the ground of existence. As I discussed at length in the other thread, logic as the basis of existence explains things much better. And by logic we only need three rules:

A is A, a thing is what it is.

A is not not-A, contradictions do not exist.

If A can be, it is.

Voila! An infinite number of universes embodying all possibilities. No need to explain where God or anything else came from.

Wouldn't an infinite number of universes also contain an infinite number of gods?

I'm having a problem with chance. I've always considered chance to be something completely random. But it isn't, is it? Nothing can be completely random. Flipping a coin might be considered random, but it all depends on natural laws. If we had a coin flipping robot and a supercomputer shouldn't the computer theoretically be able to predict the outcome every time if it new the forces on the coin? What is the difference between chance and necessity? If you flip a coin it must necessarily come up according to the forces applied on it? Am I misunderstanding something?

[ThatGirlAgain]

I still see no reason to require a conscious God as the ground of existence. As I discussed at length in the other thread, logic as the basis of existence explains things much better. And by logic we only need three rules:

A is A, a thing is what it is.

A is not not-A, contradictions do not exist.

If A can be, it is.

Voila! An infinite number of universes embodying all possibilities. No need to explain where God or anything else came from.

Wouldn't an infinite number of universes also contain an infinite number of gods?

Define 'god'. The definition we were using for God was the ground of existence. I was replacing 'God' with 'logic'. In my scenario this generated the omni-verse. Following this replacement idea, the god for each universe is simply logic and the unique laws, content etc. of that universe.

I'm having a problem with chance. I've always considered chance to be something completely random. But it isn't, is it? Nothing can be completely random. Flipping a coin might be considered random, but it all depends on natural laws. If we had a coin flipping robot and a supercomputer shouldn't the computer theoretically be able to predict the outcome every time if it knew the forces on the coin? What is the difference between chance and necessity? If you flip a coin it must necessarily come up according to the forces applied on it? Am I misunderstanding something?

Whether true randomness exists is the subject of a different thread over in Philosophy. I am not getting into that.

But what I was saying about God is that in the absence of any prior influences, Gods decisions are either random, or the only possible ones because of some even more fundamental aspect of reality. In neither case is volition an appropriate label.

[Artie]

Define 'god'. The definition we were using for God was the ground of existence. I was replacing 'God' with 'logic'. In my scenario this generated the omni-verse. Following this replacement idea, the god for each universe is simply logic and the unique laws, content etc. of that universe.

OK. That seems perfectly logical to me. I don't see any need for volition either. If the atmospheric conditions are favorable lightning must logically and necessarily occur. If the conditions were favorable to produce the singularity our universe had to logically and necessarily be created. I think.

[EduChris]

...All of these assume volition on the part of God but leave the details mysterious...

I suppose that most of the "details" of the "black box" would have to be mysterious--else it wouldn't be a black box.

...For there to even be bases (plural of basis BTW) requires something existing prior to God, who is supposed to be the ground of existence. There must be things built into the very idea of existence that inform Gods judgment...

I would say that God can consider an infinite range of possibilities, without necessarily actualizing an infinite range of possibilities. If God is free, then God can choose according to whatever internal criteria God wishes. You are saying that God must choose all possibilties, and therefore God cannot be free. But this is a circular assertion, for if God is free (or if God chooses to be free) then God can do as God pleases.

...If there are not, Gods choices are simply arbitrary and random. This is not what humans call volition...

Not random, but according to value. If, as I suggested previously, God decided to NOT actualize all possibilities, but rather chose to offload some of the decision-making to significantly free creatures with the capacity to learn and overcome significant obstacles on the way to ever-greater God-likeness, how can we then make the "arbitrary" charge stick?

...Humans make judgments based on looking at the existing situation and deciding among alternatives. With God there could be no existing situation to look at, nothing having been created yet...

You seem to suppose that God has no capacity for foresight--no capacity to peruse the full spectrum of as-yet-unrealized possibility, and make a free selection according to value. I still don't see how you justify such an assumption.

...There are many ways in which universes could have been made to facilitate meaningful and mutual relationships with significantly free creatures. Why exactly this one? And especially since this one makes such relationships really difficult...

Well--to throw out one possibility--God could have deemed it important that we encounter significant challenges, so as to give us an opportunity to overcome these challenges on our way to bigger and better things. The "problems" in our universe are either caused by us (through wrong action or through apathy) or else simply part of the mix of obstacles that God allows for our development.

...Volition as we know it is a conscious decision based on available information. To God there is no available information before creating the world. A specific decision is not based on anything. It might as well be chance and/or necessity...

I don't see why we can't have "conscious decision based on available foresight" (and with God, this "foresight" would indeed represent all as-yet-unrealized possibilities).

We don't fully know how we make volitional decisions. Yes, we know we are influenced and even at times manipulated, but still we understand that we make responsible decisions and we are responsible for the outcomes of our decisions. A random decision imposes itself on us; a volitional decision is our only way of taking ownership for the causal chain which flows from that decision.

...This is hardly our universe. Its design clearly has essentially nothing to do with us...

I think science generally is amazed at how this universe does seem designed for life--in fact, the very idea of a multiverse appeals to science precisely because it makes it easier for them to deny what otherwise would constitute all-but-undeniable design.

...God may have made it for a purpose but we are not it. To claim otherwise is a highly dubious assertion...

We remain the most significant creatures in the known universe. Given that fact, why should we suppose it was designed for some less significant creature?

...As is to think that we are amazing and magnificent compared to what could have been...

Lacking omniscience, we cannot really know "what could have been," especially if God designed the universe so that our choices could have meaningful (if unpleasant at times) consequences.

...And if the purpose of it all is for us to engage in meaningful activity and moral deliberation for Godsamusement?...

All we can do is speculate, but it seems natural to suppose that if God is inherently relational, then God might wish to enjoy genuine, mutual relationships with creatures who can be groomed for such relationships.

...how does the high infant mortality rate throughout the world and history fit into that? Likewise death rates in general. We just get to the point where we know something important about life and we die. (A paraphrase of one of the last things my grandfather said.)...

High infant mortality rates are, for the most part, due to human neglect and greed. Disease and accidents could be signifcantly reduced through changes in human behavior. Almost anything that is "bad" in this world could be made better through human cooperation and foresight and discipline.

And death is not necessarily an obstacle for God. Perhaps it is simply a transition into something bigger and better. Granted, the possibility of an afterlife does add one more assumption into the theistic mix, but it is hardly as egregious as the assumption that "all possibilities must necessarily exist," as I think you are suggesting.

...To think that God did all this deliberately and for no special reason when an infinite number of other possibilities were available is really scary...

I imagine the "scariness" depends more on one's assumptions and one's personal life-history (e.g., relationship with "father-figure," etc.) than on logic.

...I still see no reason to require a conscious God as the ground of existence. As I discussed at length in the other thread...If A can be, it is...Voila! An infinite number of universes embodying all possibilities. No need to explain where God or anything else came from.

I hardly think this is the most intuitive or parsimonius explanation. In fact, when a number of non-theists here (mistakenly) attibuted such an "explanation" to a theist, the non-theists roundly and sharply criticized the notion (not that this necessarily counts against the notion, I suppose).

But anyway, to assume that all possibilities are necessarily instantiated is to explain nothing--and it runs contrary to the scientific method, since in that case it would be possible for us to rationally suppose that, despite all appearances, this universe sprang into being a second ago (or any other fantasic claim we could devise). Far less profligate is the assumption that God chooses from infinite possibility on the basis of value--and in the case of our universe, God chose to create a universe of order and reason, amenable to creatures capable of discovering and appreciating and employing reason with an eye for worthwhile progress toward grander goals.

In the end, perhaps neither of us will convince the other to change our respective views. In the interest of furthering the discussion, will you grant that if genuine volition is possible for God (Ultimate Reality) then we cannot exclude it from the mix of causal mechanisms, in which case theism becomes epistemically justified?

[ThatGirlAgain]

...All of these assume volition on the part of God but leave the details mysterious...

I suppose that most of the "details" of the "black box" would have to be mysterious--else it wouldn't be a black box.

And we can say anything we want about a black box without fear of contradiction as long as we assume it is an impenetrable black box. Like assuming volition on the part of God and calling the problem areas mysteries. In religion class we were expected to take the mysteries on faith. But when we are presumably taking a logical approach without reliance on faith, it is suspicious. (BTW, my screen name comes from overhearing a religion teacher sighing that girl again to another teacher after class. )

...For there to even be bases (plural of basis BTW) requires something existing prior to God, who is supposed to be the ground of existence. There must be things built into the very idea of existence that inform Gods judgment...

I would say that God can consider an infinite range of possibilities, without necessarily actualizing an infinite range of possibilities. If God is free, then God can choose according to whatever internal criteria God wishes. You are saying that God must choose all possibilities, and therefore God cannot be free. But this is a circular assertion, for if God is free (or if God chooses to be free) then God can do as God pleases.

I am saying that God has no basis for making decisions on which possibilities to actualize. If choices on made based on nothing, how is this different from random? Why should that be called volition?

...If there are not, Gods choices are simply arbitrary and random. This is not what humans call volition...

Not random, but according to value. If, as I suggested previously, God decided to NOT actualize all possibilities, but rather chose to offload some of the decision-making to significantly free creatures with the capacity to learn and overcome significant obstacles on the way to ever-greater God-likeness, how can we then make the "arbitrary" charge stick?

Again, if this universe is Gods choice for us out of all possibilities, why is it so irrelevant to us in almost every respect? Claiming this universe is designed with us in mind would appear to be an assumption with no real backing. How do you get to the conclusion that a supernatural being made this universe in order to watch us make decisions without first assuming that is the case?

...Humans make judgments based on looking at the existing situation and deciding among alternatives. With God there could be no existing situation to look at, nothing having been created yet...

You seem to suppose that God has no capacity for foresight--no capacity to peruse the full spectrum of as-yet-unrealized possibility, and make a free selection according to value. I still don't see how you justify such an assumption.

What is that value based on? How does God choose what is valuable and what is not without some pre-existing means of making a decision. Foresight does not help without already existing standards for making choices.

...There are many ways in which universes could have been made to facilitate meaningful and mutual relationships with significantly free creatures. Why exactly this one? And especially since this one makes such relationships really difficult...

Well--to throw out one possibility--God could have deemed it important that we encounter significant challenges, so as to give us an opportunity to overcome these challenges on our way to bigger and better things. The "problems" in our universe are either caused by us (through wrong action or through apathy) or else simply part of the mix of obstacles that God allows for our development.

Why would God want us to develop? What constitutes development? Where does Gods value system come from?

...Volition as we know it is a conscious decision based on available information. To God there is no available information before creating the world. A specific decision is not based on anything. It might as well be chance and/or necessity...

I don't see why we can't have "conscious decision based on available foresight" (and with God, this "foresight" would indeed represent all as-yet-unrealized possibilities).

Again, foresight does not help unless there is already a set of standards for making decisions. Where did that standard come from?

We don't fully know how we make volitional decisions. Yes, we know we are influenced and even at times manipulated, but still we understand that we make responsible decisions and we are responsible for the outcomes of our decisions. A random decision imposes itself on us; a volitional decision is our only way of taking ownership for the causal chain which flows from that decision.

I have nothing against volitional decisions and see no need to make them mechanical artifacts as some materialists do. Nonetheless we make decisions based on information. Before God creates anything there is no information. And information from foresight requires standards on which to base decisions. Saying that there are some kind of natural standards of goodness built into the idea of existence itself but that these standards can be violated does not make sense to me. That is some complicated assuming going on there.

...This is hardly our universe. Its design clearly has essentially nothing to do with us...

I think science generally is amazed at how this universe does seem designed for life--in fact, the very idea of a multiverse appeals to science precisely because it makes it easier for them to deny what otherwise would constitute all-but-undeniable design.

If the universe is so designed for life, why is the vast majority of it " and I mean lots of decimal places vast " utterly inhospitable to life? If the universe is designed we are an accidental byproduct. An excellent case can be made that the universe is designed for making black holes, which then lead to new universes that usually have the properties needed for making more black holes. (Ref) evolutionary processes would result in most universes being also able to sustain in some tiny portions.

...God may have made it for a purpose but we are not it. To claim otherwise is a highly dubious assertion...

We remain the most significant creatures in the known universe. Given that fact, why should we suppose it was designed for some less significant creature?

We are significant to ourselves. But God may think stars are the most significant things in the universe. They are really impressive in how they work and what they do. And he sure made a lot of them.

...As is to think that we are amazing and magnificent compared to what could have been...

Lacking omniscience, we cannot really know "what could have been," especially if God designed the universe so that our choices could have meaningful (if unpleasant at times) consequences.

Meaningful according to what standards? Where did these standards come from?

...And if the purpose of it all is for us to engage in meaningful activity and moral deliberation for Godsamusement?...

All we can do is speculate, but it seems natural to suppose that if God is inherently relational, then God might wish to enjoy genuine, mutual relationships with creatures who can be groomed for such relationships.

Why should God be inherently relational?

...how does the high infant mortality rate throughout the world and history fit into that? Likewise death rates in general. We just get to the point where we know something important about life and we die. (A paraphrase of one of the last things my grandfather said.)...

High infant mortality rates are, for the most part, due to human neglect and greed. Disease and accidents could be significantly reduced through changes in human behavior. Almost anything that is "bad" in this world could be made better through human cooperation and foresight and discipline.

High infant mortality rates and most of the bad news aspects of life are due to this being a nasty world for individual life, despite its being the extremely rare example of a place where life can even exist. Despite the catchiness of the phrase, it is not about survival of the fittest. It is survival of the fit enough. An organism, like us for instance, that manages to reproduce reliably enough for its genetic line not to vanish will continue in spite of the misery experienced by individuals along the way. If this is designed, that design is about genes, not people.

And death is not necessarily an obstacle for God. Perhaps it is simply a transition into something bigger and better. Granted, the possibility of an afterlife does add one more assumption into the theistic mix, but it is hardly as egregious as the assumption that "all possibilities must necessarily exist," as I think you are suggesting.

I am definitely suggesting that. It arises from simple logical premises, two of which are pretty much undeniable. Here it is again.

A is A, a thing is what it is.

A is not not-A, contradictions do not exist.

If A can be, it is.

Voila! An infinite number of universes embodying all possibilities. No need to explain where God or anything else came from.

The third assumption merely suggests that logic is the foundation of existence. This is a fairly small step past saying that logic is inherent in reality.

On the other hand your belief in an afterlife is based on what?

...To think that God did all this deliberately and for no special reason when an infinite number of other possibilities were available is really scary...

I imagine the "scariness" depends more on one's assumptions and one's personal life-history than on logic.

What set of assumptions and life history would make this the best of all possible worlds. In his Essays Leibniz put forth this claim to solve the problem of evil. (Ref) I do not have it handy but I recall him saying that if more than one world were equally satisfactory God would have made more than one. But different worlds could not all be equally satisfactory so this must be the best one possible. I am saying that there is no pre-existing standard on what is satisfactory so there is no theological obstacle to all of them existing.

...I still see no reason to require a conscious God as the ground of existence. As I discussed at length in the other thread...If A can be, it is...Voila! An infinite number of universes embodying all possibilities. No need to explain where God or anything else came from.

I hardly think this is the most parsimonious explanation. In fact, when a number of non-theists here (mistakenly) attributed such an "explanation" to a theist, the non-theists roundly and sharply criticized the notion (not that this necessarily counts against the notion, I suppose).

As I explained above, it is highly parsimonious, requiring only the existence of logic. And (as you noted) trying to discredit an argument based on who said it is not exactly kosher. Also, never forget that this puppy is a mongrel. I owe no allegiance to any party.

But anyway, to assume that all possibilities are necessarily instantiated is to explain nothing--and it runs contrary to the scientific method, since in that case it would be possible for us to rationally suppose that, despite all appearances, this universe sprang into being a second ago (or any other fantastic claim we could devise). Far less profligate is the assumption that God chooses from infinite possibility on the basis of value--and in the case of our universe, God chose to create a universe of order and reason, amenable to creatures capable of discovering and appreciating and employing reason.

No, my proposal does not allow the universe to have sprung into existence a second ago. There would be no logical progression, no explanation for all the details. It would not be a coherent and logically consistent possibility. On the other hand, it is entirely possible for God to have done this.

In the end, perhaps neither of us will convince the other to change our respective views. In the interest of furthering the discussion, will you grant that if genuine volition is possible for God, then we cannot exclude it from the mix of causal mechanisms, in which case theism becomes epistemically justified?

The bare bones definition of theism is that there is a creator deity. This does not necessarily require volition. Imagine the omni-verse I describe but with each universe being a separate thought of the divine Thinker of All Thoughts. A universe would be the logical unfolding of the initial premises that constitute the individual thought. But that would bring us to Cantors Absolute Infinite and I am already behind on school work. Project/paper due dates and Finals coming up real soon. And then there is work.

In any case, even if creator deity, volitional or not, were postulated, I still see no connection with religion.

I may be slow in following upon this thread for reasons referenced above. Come on, lottery!

[EduChris]

...we can say anything we want about a black box without fear of contradiction as long as we assume it is an impenetrable black box...

I wouldn't go that far. We should strive to make as few assumptions as possible, and hold any of our conclusions tentatively, pending further insight.

...In religion class...

As hard as it may seem to believe, I've heard as much or more unhelpful statements from non-theists as from any "religion teacher." Not sure how this is relevant to our current discussion, however. No one has a monopoly on nonsense.

...I am saying that God has no basis for making decisions on which possibilities to actualize. If choices on made based on nothing, how is this different from random? Why should that be called volition?...

Probably we've beat around the bush on this point long enough. We're unlikely to arrive at any agreement.

...if this universe is Gods choice for us out of all possibilities, why is it so irrelevant to us in almost every respect? Claiming this universe is designed with us in mind would appear to be an assumption with no real backing...

I am basing my observations on current science, which basically says either the universe seems designed specifically for intelligent life, or else there must be an infinite number of universes and ours just happens to be the one which is suited for intelligent life.

...How do you get to the conclusion that a supernatural being made this universe in order to watch us make decisions without first assuming that is the case?...

I didn't say that God chose to make this universe in order to "watch us make decisions." I speculated about value and relationships and development toward God-likeness, in response to your absolute claim; in short, I provided an alternative scenario which serves as a a falsifier to your absolute claim.

...How does God choose what is valuable and what is not without some pre-existing means of making a decision. Foresight does not help without already existing standards for making choices...

I would say that without additional information and analysis, we are not in a position to speculate on God's specific basis for decision-making, other than perhaps according to some internal bestowal of value. If God is free, then whatever God chooses will have inherent value simply on the basis that God chose it over others. This isn't "random" because it isn't something imposed on God from external sources, and because God chooses to take responsibility for the causal chain which follows from God's decision.

...Why would God want us to develop? What constitutes development? Where does Gods value system come from?...

If you are asking for speculation, I would say that mutual relationships of love with creatures designed for ever-increasing God-likeness is as good a guess as any I've heard. In the end, whatever God chooses becomes valuable for the simple reason that God chose it and assumed responsibility for that causal chain rather than another.

...Saying that there are some kind of natural standards of goodness built into the idea of existence itself but that these standards can be violated does not make sense to me...

Who is making any such claim? Or how does such claim follow from anything I have claimed?

...If the universe is so designed for life, why is the vast majority of it " and I mean lots of decimal places vast " utterly inhospitable to life?...

I think some scientists have argued that the universe had to be this big in order to have any chance of developing intelligent life.

...If the universe is designed we are an accidental byproduct...

Circular reasoning and/or non-sequitur. It could equally be the case that since it is designed as it is, and since intelligent life becomes inevitable given this universe, then the universe was designed for intelligent life.

...We are significant to ourselves. But God may think stars are the most significant things in the universe. They are really impressive in how they work and what they do. And he sure made a lot of them...

Stars are a dime a dozen. Life is rare, and intelligent life is rarer still. Logically, we tend to place higher value on rarities over commodities.

...Why should God be inherently relational?...

On another thread, I argued that relationality is a Godelian "superpositive" property--i.e., one that is logically entailed for all possible worlds. If something is entailed for all possible worlds, then it becomes somewhat more reasonable than not to suppose that it is intrinsic to Ultimate Reality.

...this being a nasty world for individual life...

Nasty or challenging, depending on one's point of view.

...An organism, like us for instance, that manages to reproduce reliably enough for its genetic line not to vanish will continue in spite of the misery experienced by individuals along the way. If this is designed, that design is about genes, not people...

We have become advanced enough to control and limit the extent of the suffering experienced by intelligent, sentient beings such as ourselves. We have developed far beyond anything necessary for the propagation of genes.

...If A can be, it is...Voila! An infinite number of universes embodying all possibilities...On the other hand your belief in an afterlife is based on what?...

Given a choice between "all possibilities are necessarily actualized" and "there is an afterlife," I will choose the afterlife any day of the week. And especially so since we have evidence of unembodied consciousness in near-death experiences (and "near-death" experiences need not be conflated or confused with "almost-dead" experiences).

...all be equally satisfactory so this must be the best one possible. I am saying that there is no pre-existing standard on what is satisfactory...

Perhaps God bestows value in the actualization of possibilities for non-Gods (ourselves) to become increasingly more God-like, as a result of a mutual give-and-take relationship. I see no reason why this should be any less reasonable than your contrary claims.

...my proposal does not allow the universe to have sprung into existence a second ago. There would be no logical progression, no explanation for all the details. It would not be a coherent and logically consistent possibility...

There is no reason why our memories and all data could not have been "front-loaded." This is a distinct possibility, and therefore would have to be instantiated in some universe, per your "all-that-is-possible-is-necessarily-actualized" hypothesis.

...I am already behind on school work. Project/paper due dates and Finals coming up real soon. And then there is work...I may be slow in following upon this thread for reasons referenced above...

Okay.

...In any case, even if creator deity, volitional or not, were postulated, I still see no connection with religion...

It all boils down to the pursuit of Ultimate truth within a community which is devoted to such truth. If the Christian path is correct, there is value in the journey, there are obstacles to overcome, there is an infinitude of grand destiny ahead of us, and we are not alone. To me, this is much more reasonable than the simple, "if it can be, it necessarily is." But obviously there will be differences of opinion on these matters.